On Friday, 16 June 2006 at 22:33, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > Damn, still no agreement, but a whole new system I haven't even heard of > > before... > Yes, I know and I didn't want to snub you...
No offence taken. My approach was pragmatic, not progressive: use something people are familiar with, and document the rest. I guess with about every other developer gone (at least temporary) the opposition against a totally new system will be low. The question is: What about if they come back? Will they accept a new system? > Just got a complete dislike of autotools after trying to modify the > configure.ac and this svn-revision inclusion stuff... :( Oh, I could live perfectly without autoconf, but there is no established alternative (the pragmatism again). But there are two features that are not widely used but which people might find useful in autoconf: Cross-compiling, and the ability to use a build directory different from the source tree. That's mainly useful in cross-compiling, you can have the builds for different architectures in different directories, without the need to copy the whole source tree. All other uses are quite obscure, the only one I can think of right now is having the source tree on a read-only medium. > > Is it possible to replace both the autostuff and Makefile.raw > > systems with waf, so there is only one build system? > [quote]No shell, no Perl, no Autohell, only Python[/quote] > Should be, Python works on Windows as well... Yeah, seems like it's quite easy to install Python on Windows, so that's no obstacle. That leaves the question of cross-compiling: Do we need it? Does waf support it (it didn't look like it did)? It's not essential, but might be useful: to compile a Windows version on Linux, or a 32-bit version on a 64-bit system. -- BOFH excuse #180: ether leak _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
